Michael Brown wrote on Townhall that these are
important steps to take, asking if those who deny the
link between video games and violence - including the
game companies themselves - are in denial.

It's a common complaint and, as a fairly avid gamer
myself, one that makes me sigh with frustration and want
to dismiss it out of hand. But it shouldn't be so easy.

Buzzfeed's John Herman wrote in
the wake of the Newtown shootings about how realistic
and, often, stomach-churning some video game violence has
become.

Games like Postal 2 and the Soldier of Fortune series
were not representative of the industry as a whole and
were clearly intended to offend, so it was easy for
defensive gamers to deflect criticism — these were niche
titles, after all. But Grand Theft Auto 3 was not a niche
title, nor were any of its wildly successful follow-ups.
The Battlefield and Call of Duty series have become some
of the most successful entertainment franchises in
history. Much of the deliberate provocation of the early
2000s has become standard in the world's top-selling (and
far more realistic) games. Modern Warfare II's notorious
airport massacre scene drew criticism, of course. But the
next sequel in the franchise became the fastest selling
game in history.

All this is to say that while uninformed anti-game
sensationalism may be unproductive, gamers' reflexive
defensiveness is worse. It's prevented us from having a
meaningful conversation about an industry that is
emotionally and morally stunted, where per-title revenue
can dwarf even the most successful films of all time but
which seems immune from discussions of taste and artistic
merit. A higher-up at one of the largest game publishers
in the world once confided in me that when his bosses
showed him early footage from a popular first-person
shooter produced by another studio in the company, he
couldn't bring himself to watch to the end.

Whereas the most popular video games twenty years ago
starred portly plumbers jumping on top of mushroom-shaped
brown blobs, the most popular games today are military
shooters that strive for realism above all. That's not to
say that Call of Duty teaches gamers how to shoot
a gun, but that they try hard to portray real-life
warfare and violence as realistically as possible.

So those teenage boys who experienced more aggression or
violence say in their neighborhoods, at home, watch more
movies, play more video games that involve violence,
they’re the ones that showed the most desensitization.

The implications are that people who show more rapid
desensitization to violent pictures are going to be more
accepting of violence. There's going to be more
toleration of it, not only as they observe others—
friends, family members, acquaintances—but also in their
society at large and potentially in their own behavior.
And that is dangerous for the integration and the
wellbeing of their local community. And it also may
potentially put them into dangerous situations if they’re
willing to be more aggressive without having the
emotional breaks we all use and the cognitive breaks we
all use to stop our aggressive and violent behavior.

I think the important issue here is limiting the
frequency and the intensity of their exposure to
aggression. And that ranges everything from using
computers and devices to making sure if they live in a
community where there is a lot of aggression that they
have alternative activities to participate in.

This isn't to say that violent video games cause
violence. Or even that there's a meaningful link. There
is a legitimate discussion to be had, though, especially
among parents concerned with the best way to raise their
children.

However, Kierkegaard explains, there is no obvious link
between real-world violence statistics and the advent of
video games. If anything, the effect seems to be the
exact opposite and one might argue that video game usage
has reduced real violence. Despite several high profile
incidents in US academic institutions, "Violent crime,
particularly among the young, has decreased dramatically
since the early 1990s," says Kierkegaard, "while video
games have steadily increased in popularity and use. For
example, in 2005, there were 1,360,088 violent crimes
reported in the USA compared with 1,423,677 the year
before. "With millions of sales of violent games, the
world should be seeing an epidemic of violence," he says,
"Instead, violence has declined."

The report , released earlier this year, states:
"Psychological studies invariably find a positive
relationship between violent video game play and
aggression.

"Yet to date, though there is evidence that violent
video games cause aggression in a laboratory setting,
there is no evidence that violent video games cause
violence or crime."

It adds: "We argue that since laboratory experiments have
not examined the time use effects of video games, which
incapacitate violent activity by drawing individual
gamers into extended gameplay, laboratory studies may be
poor predictors of the net effects of violent video games
in society.

"Consequently, they overstate the importance of video
game induced aggression as a social cost. "

There's certainly evidence out there that video games -
especially as a part of a violent media ecosystem - may
desensitize people psychologically to violence. There's
also evidence that violent video games, TV shows and
movies may foster aggressive behavior in young adults.
But it's also likely that video games provide an outlet
for antisocial behavior and prevent real-world incidents.
It could be that youths who used to play and watch
football - another leisure activity linked to
aggression and violence - merely play video games
instead.

It's important not to rush to judgment in the wake of a
tragedy, and it's important not to take a black-or-white
approach in characterizing complicated issues. It could
be that additional study is needed, but it may be the
case that a study funded by the federal government is
going to be plagued by confirmation bias.